Hypostatic union: the union of divne and human natures in the one Person of Jesus.
Ontological: having to do with “being,” “essence,”
“nature”; having to do with what something “is.”
Instrumental: used as a means to an end; used as a “tool”
to accomplish a purpose
When I began to study T.F.
Torrance’s doctrine of the atonement, I was confused by his critique of
traditional “theories” of atonement. For Torrance, the models of atonement that
developed in the history of the Western Latin church portray the atonement as
an “external,” “instrumental” transaction between Jesus and God. Following
Barth, Torrance groups these models of atonement under the rubric, the “Latin
heresy.” Only after I had gained some understanding of Torrance’s own view of
the atonement, was I able to fully appreciate his critique of traditional
models of atonement.
In order to understand
Torrance’s critique of the “Latin heresy” and what he means by “external,”
“instrumental” approaches to the atonement, we must first review his own view
of atonement and then compare it to traditional Western views of the atoning
“work” of Jesus Christ.
Hypostatic
Union
Torrance’s doctrine of the
atonement arises directly from his understanding of the doctrine of the “hypostatic
union,” formulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. This doctrine
asserts that Jesus Christ is “fully God” and “fully human” “in” one Person. For Torrance, the union of
divine and human natures in the one person of Jesus Christ is an “atoning”
union, where the word “at-one-ment” means “reconciliation.” That is, the
incarnation itself is redemptive. In
his one incarnate person, Jesus Christ is
the reconciliation of God and fallen humanity.
Unity of Person and Work
In Torrance’s holistic, unitary
[non-dualist] doctrine of atonement, the “work” of Jesus Christ is never
separated from the “person” of Jesus Christ. For Torrance, “how” Jesus Christ
provides atoning reconciliation is a direct function of “who” he is as the
incarnate Saviour, who is at once both God and man. As Scandrett (2006:71)
rightly notes, the unity of the “person” and “work” of Jesus Christ is an
important corollary of Torrance’s discussion of the hypostatic union of divine
and human natures in Jesus Christ. For Torrance, atoning reconciliation takes
place “within” [not “external to”] the incarnate constitution of Jesus
Christ; that is, Jesus Christ “is” the Gospel, for he “embodies” [“internal”]
reconciliation between God and humanity.
Assumption
of Fallen Flesh
The sine qua non of Torrance’s doctrine of “incarnational redemption”
or “atoning reconciliation” is the Patristic doctrine that the eternal
Word of God assumed fallen, sinful,
Adamic flesh in the incarnation. Following Athanasius, in his Contra Arianos (Torrance, 1988a:161 n.
52), Torrance argues that in taking upon himself “the form of a servant” (Phil
2:7), Jesus Christ assumed “fallen Adamic humanity” from the Virgin Mary, that
is, “our perverted, corrupt, degenerate, diseased human nature enslaved to sin
and subject to death under the condemnation of God” (Torrance, 1988a:161; cf. 1994a:58). In becoming flesh, the
Son of God “became what we are as sinners alienated from God and existing down
to the roots of our being in a state of disobedience against him” (Torrance,1990:203).
Elsewhere (1992:39) Torrance writes:
[T]he Incarnation was
the coming of God to save us in the heart of our fallen and depraved
humanity, where humanity is at its wickedest in its enmity and violence against
the reconciling love of God. That is to say, the Incarnation is to be
understood as the coming of God to take upon himself our fallen human nature,
our actual human existence laden with sin and guilt, our humanity diseased in
mind and soul in its estrangement or alienation from the Creator.
As Gill (2007:53) notes, in his
reconciling revelation, God put himself on the side of the enemy (cf. Barth, 1957g:151). In becoming
flesh, the Son of God “became what we are as sinners alienated from God and
existing down to the roots of our being in a state of disobedience against him”
(Torrance,1990:203). Torrance continues:
[I]n his incarnation the
Son of God penetrated into the dark recesses of our human existence and
condition where we are enslaved in original sin, in order to bring the
redeeming love and holiness of God to bear upon us in the distorted ontological
depths of our human being.
According to Torrance, the
assumption of fallen human flesh was “a doctrine found everywhere in the early
Church in the first five centuries” (Torrance, 1992:39). The Greek fathers
argued that in becoming flesh, the incarnate Son was not merely “externally” or
“accidentally” related to us, for without being united with us in “our condition of sin, corruption and
slavery,” he could not save us (Torrance, 1990:202). According to Gill
(2007:53) and Ho (2008:70), Torrance is directly influenced by Barth in
asserting the assumption of fallen flesh. For Barth, as Gill notes, the word
translated “flesh” in John 1:14 (i.e.,
sarx) means “fallen” flesh (Barth,
1957g:151, 152). Moreover, Gunton (1992:52) supports the “fallenness”
position by arguing that Christ assumed our actual fallen nature and not some
“idealised” human nature. As Gill (2007:55) correctly argues, the assumption of
fallen flesh is “central” to Torrance’s doctrine of incarnational redemption.
Ontological
healing and Atoning Reconciliation
In distinction to “forensic”
[i.e., “legal,” “penal”] categories of the atonement (see below), Torrance
frames his discussion of the atonement in ontological
terms (i.e., having to do with “being,” “essence,” “nature”]. For Torrance
(1990:204), it is important to realise that “in the very act of taking our
fallen nature upon himself Christ was at work healing, redeeming
and sanctifying it.” Thus, Torrance (1988a:162) views the incarnate
Son’s assumption of fallen Adamic flesh as a “reconciling, healing,
sanctifying and recreating activity.” Cass (2008:169) rightly describes
Torrance’s soteriology as one of “ontological healing.” As
Scandrett (2006:85) notes, Torrance’s argument for the assumption of a fallen
human nature follows from his understanding of both the incarnation and the
atonement. If the goal of the atonement is to heal humanity of sin and death and bring us back into right
relationship with God, then the eternal Word must assume our fallen Adamic
flesh in order to cleanse and heal it.
Torrance’s assertion of the
assumption of fallen Adamic flesh in order to heal and cleanse it in the
hypostatic union of divine and human natures in Jesus Christ is based on the
soteriological principle given “its most epigrammatic expression” by Gregory
Nazianzus: “the unassumed is the unhealed.” The early fathers understood
that if the whole man was to be healed, the whole man had to be assumed in the
incarnation, for that which is not taken up by Christ is not saved (Torrance,
1992:39).
Summary: For
Torrance, the incarnation is no mere “static” union of God and human flesh;
rather, it is a dynamic healing,
cleansing, reconciling, sanctifying union of God and humanity. The incarnation
itself is redemptive; the union of
divine and human natures in Jesus is
atoning reconciliation. Atonement is not something Jesus “does,” as in
traditional models of the atonement (see below). Rather, Jesus is the atonement; he is God and fallen Adamic flesh joined in
reconciling union. From “inside” the skin of Adam and throughout the “whole
course” of his obedient life, Jesus bent the rebellious human will back to the
Father, healed and cleansed our corrupt, diseased “flesh” and reconciled us to
the Father.
Traditional
Theories of Atonement
To better appreciate Torrance’s
view of the atonement, let us briefly review three major models or “theories”
of atonement that have arisen in the history of the Western-Latin church. These
are: 1) Anselm’s “satisfaction” theory; 2) Abelard’s “moral influence” theory; and
3) Calvin’s “penal substitution” theory. (I am not including Luther’s Christus Victor theory because I believe
that Torrance incorporates this view into his model of the atonement, while not
limiting himself to it.)
Anselm’s
Satisfaction Theory
In the Middle Ages, Anselm of
Canterbury (1033-1109) developed a model of the atonement usually known as the
“satisfaction” theory. Also known as the “Latin” or “juridical”
view, this model of atonement has been prominent in Roman Catholic
Scholasticism and Protestant orthodoxy. Rooted in the feudal societies of his
time, Anselm’s theory of the atonement depicts God as a “feudal lord” whose
honour has been violated by his “vassal,” that is, sinful humanity. In order to
uphold justice in the cosmos, God must receive satisfaction for the affront to his honour occasioned by human
disobedience. Humanity’s debt is so great, however, that it cannot pay it;
hence, it is necessary that God assume human nature, so that, as a human being,
God can pay the debt that humanity otherwise cannot pay. For Anselm, Christ’s
death on the cross is a substitutionary payment of a debt owed by humanity to
God. When Christ dies, atonement is complete; God’s honour is satisfied, his
wrath assuaged, and humanity’s penalty of eternal death is set aside (Olson,
2002:257, 258; Bloesch, 2006:153).
Note: In this model the eternal
Word assumes human nature in order to pay a debt. Jesus offers his body on the
cross, so that divine honour may be “satisfied.”
Abelard’s Moral Influence Theory
Another medieval theologian,
Peter Abelard (1079-1142), offered an alternative to Anselm’s satisfaction
theory. For Abelard, God does not require payment of a penalty. Rather, God
wants sinful humanity to repent and throw itself on God’s mercy. People do not
repent, however, because they fear and hate God. In consequence, Christ lays
down his life in atonement in order to demonstrate God’s great love for
humanity. Abelard portrays the atonement in terms of a “moral influence” that
changes the perspective of humanity, causing us to trust God and repent of our
sins. In this model, Christ’s death on the cross is viewed as exemplary, rather than propitiatory (turning
away wrath) or expiatory (expunging sin). Christ suffered in order to subdue
the alienation of humanity by a supreme example
of self-sacrificing love (Olson, 2002:258, 259; Bloesch, 2006:158).
Note: In this model Jesus’ life
(i.e., humanity) is merely exemplary;
that is, Jesus sets us an “example” of self-sacrificing love.
Calvin’s
Penal Substitution Theory
Another theory of the atonement
arose during the Reformation as an adjustment to Anselm’s satisfaction theory.
This is the “penal substitution” theory associated with John Calvin
(1509-1564) and Reformed theology. In this view, Christ reconciles God and humanity
by taking upon himself the punishment sinful humans deserve, thereby
reconciling God’s righteous anger with his love for mankind. At the cross,
human salvation is made possible and the Father can now regard mankind
favourably. In this theory of atonement, the focus is on punishment. The penalty born by Christ for humanity is not the
satisfaction of God’s wounded honour; rather, it is capital punishment as retribution deserved by
sinful humanity’s disobedience.
This theory has been rightly criticized
because it introduces a disjunction between God the Father and the incarnate
Son in which the Father is depicted as angry, wrathful, and punitive, while
Jesus is regarded as loving, kind, and forgiving. Moreover, “womanist”
theologians regard this theory as sanctioning child abuse and violence (Olson,
2002:259, 260, 262).
Note: In this model the eternal
Word assumes a human body so that it might be “punished” in order to exact the
payment of a penalty.
Dualist,
External, Instrumental
Recall that in Torrance’s
model, the incarnation itself is a healing,
sanctifying union between God and fallen humanity. Atonement occurs “within”
the hypostatic union (the union of God and humanity in the one person of Jesus
Christ). In other words, the atonement is “internal” or intrinsic to the person of Christ. Atonement is “Who”
Jesus is, not merely what he “does.” In his incarnate constitution
as God and humanity united in one Person, Jesus is that atonement.
In the traditional Latin views,
on the other hand, atonement is not regarded as “internal,” to the “person” of
Jesus Christ. That is, atonement is not a function of “who” Jesus Christ is as God and humanity joined in reconciling
union; rather, atonement is a “work” that Jesus does. As Torrance argues, traditional views of the atonement create
a dualism (separation, division)
between the “person” and “work” of Jesus. In all three views, atonement is
“external” to the person of Jesus; he is merely an agent of atonement, for his humanity
(i.e., “body”) is merely instrumental―that
is, a “means to an end.” In Anselm’s view, and the “penal” view that arose from
it, Jesus’ humanity is merely a vehicle or “instrument” supplied to satisfy divine honour or pay a penalty by enduring
punishment. In Abelard’s view, Jesus’ life (humanity) is merely “exemplary”;
that is, Jesus sets an “example” for us to emulate. All three models lack a
real (ontological) connection between Jesus and us. Atonement is a “work” that
Jesus does “for” humanity, not “in” humanity.
Because there is no ontological
connection between Jesus and us, traditional models require that the atonement
be supplemented or complemented by a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit (i.e.,
“sanctification”). For Torrance, this creates a dualism between the atonement
of Jesus Christ and the “work” of the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, lacking a real
ontological connection between the atonement and humanity, traditional views
require that we be “declared” righteous (i.e., “justified”) upon a profession
of faith. In Torrance's ontological approach to the atonement, however,
humanity is actually made “righteous”
in the vicarious humanity of Jesus. We participate
in his righteousness through union with him by the Holy Spirit. In Torrance’s
view of the atonement, conversion, repentance, faith, justification and
sanctification are all realized in our place and on our behalf “in” Jesus.
ATONEMENT
Traditional
(Latin)
|
Torrance
|
|
locus
|
external-instrumental-dualist
|
internal-ontological-unitary
|
purpose
|
satisfaction
(Anselm)
example
(Abelard)
punishment
(Calvin)
|
reconciliation
ontological
healing
sanctification
|
Subsequent
acts
|
Declared
righteous by imputation (i.e., justification)
Sanctified by the Holy spirit
|
Made righteous and sanctified
in Jesus’ vicarious humanity
|
Next post (coming soon!): The Latin heresy revisited
For 9 posts on Torrance’s
doctrine of atonement, click:
For 13 posts on the doctrine of the “vicarious
humanity” of Jesus Christ, click:
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI will read more from T.F. Torrance.